Skip to main content
Glama
sharafutdinovdi

Revit Model MCP

by sharafutdinovdi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Remove Links

revit_remove_links
Destructive

Delete selected Revit link types and instances from a model. Use dry_run to preview; requires confirm_token; cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete selected link types and their instances; dry_run previews. Cannot be undone in Revit. Needs confirm_token from a first call, which changes nothing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindsNo
linksYes
dry_runNo
documentNoTitle or file name substring of the target open document; needed when several are open.
confirm_tokenNo
include_imported_cadNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm_token / title
      Removed value: -"Confirm Token"
    • changedInput schema / properties / document / description
      Previous value: -"Case-insensitive substring of the target open document's title or file name. Required to disambiguate when the Revit process has more than one document open; omit only when a single document is open (the active document is used). An unknown or ambiguous reference is rejected before any change."New value: +"Title or file name substring of the target open document; needed when several are open."
    • removedInput schema / properties / document / title
      Removed value: -"Document"
    • removedInput schema / properties / dry_run / title
      Removed value: -"Dry Run"
    • removedInput schema / properties / include_imported_cad / title
      Removed value: -"Include Imported Cad"
    • removedInput schema / properties / kinds / title
      Removed value: -"Kinds"
    • removedInput schema / properties / links / title
      Removed value: -"Links"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"revit_remove_linksArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"revit_remove_linksDictOutput"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Confirm Token"
+}
  3. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing irreversibility ('Cannot be undone in Revit') and the confirm-token safety gate. Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description builds on that rather than repeating it. It omits auth requirements and the scope of the deletion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two safety-critical facts. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, multi-parameter tool, the description covers the essential safety workflow and irreversibility, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The gap is undocumented parameter detail rather than missing behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must carry the param load but does not. dry_run and confirm_token are covered, yet the required links format and the '*' wildcard, the kinds enum values, and include_imported_cad are all left unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (link types and their instances), which is more precise than the generic sibling revit_delete. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the resource scope is distinctive enough that an agent can place it correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context: dry_run for preview, and the two-step confirm_token flow with the note that the first call 'changes nothing.' It does not compare against revit_links_status or revit_delete, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools